Pike-devel

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

3046 discussions

Re: Pike dev import/export to/from LysKOM
by David Hedbor (I live in interesting times) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

> huh? where am i expecting the users to change? > getting cc'd messages exported is an implementation issue of the exporter > and has nothing to do with user behaviour. In the statement Martin's commented: > as i said elsewhere, if they are not interresting then cc is not needed > at all, if they are interresting enough to get cc'd then they should > get exported too. You said right there "if they are not interesting then cc is not needed at all". However "cc" in LysKOM is, as Martin pointed out, not used in the same way it's used in mail. It's not always used to add possibly interested recpients to a message but most often used to divert an off-topic discussion from one conference to another. Now, it is at times used to simply add a recipient that might possibly be interested as well. The only REAL difference between a normal recipient and a CC recipient is that comments to a message only gets sent to forums which has an actual recipient. CC recipients are ignored in that case. / David Hedbor (I live in interesting times) Previous text: >2002-09-05 16:20: >Subject: Re: Pike dev import/export to/from LysKOM >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 03:55:01PM +0200, Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote: >> > as i said elsewhere, if they are not interresting then cc is not needed >> > at all, if they are interresting enough to get cc'd then they should >> > get exported too. >> The common practice in LysKOM is to CC the message just when a thread >> changes conference. I don't think you'll succeed in making all LysKOM >> users change their behavior so that it suits you. > >huh? where am i expecting the users to change? >getting cc'd messages exported is an implementation issue of the exporter >and has nothing to do with user behaviour. > >> LysKOM does not map fully to emails. >> Accept that or upgrade to a LysKOM client. > >i do accept that, there will be a gap, i am just trying to get this gap >to become smaller. > >> (and to prevent whining about unavailability of LysKOM clients for your >> platform, I want to stress that your platform is part of your choice). > >bah, the whole thing is about choice! >most of all i choose not to use multiple programs to do the same job. >for editing i only use vi, >for programming only pike >and to send and receive messages, only email. > >greetings, martin. > > > / Brevbäraren >

1 0

[Pike-devel] argv[0]?
by Fredrik (Naranek) Hubinette (Real Build Master) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

POSIX sucks / Fredrik (Naranek) Hubinette (Real Build Master) Previous text: >2002-09-03 17:41: >Subject: argv[0]? >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >What I understood from the previous discussion, some people don't consider >POSIX calls portable (mainly because Win32 doesn't support the calls). If >my understanding is correct, then I must say that I don't like the >approach. POSIX is much more of a standard than Win32 will ever be >(i.e. how can something used by one company and one family of products be a >standard?) > > / Marek Habersack (Grendel) >

5 5

Bug?
by Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

master.pike: [...] ({"nowarnings",tmp->NO_ARG,({"-W", "--woff", "--no-warnings"})}), [...] case "no-warnings": [...] Borde det inte stå "nowarnings" i casen också?

2 1

argv[0]?
by Leif Stensson, Lysator ＠ Pike developers forum 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

("Leif", not "Lief".) My point wasn't really that fork() was a part of unix whether one likes it or not, but rather that fork() was a perfectly good API to process creation _for an operating system_. It doesn't follow from this that the operating system API must be literally reflected in the API of a programming language; especially not a programming language for portable script-like application, rather than low-level system-specific programs. It might be nice to provide access to the operating system functions generally, so that people who really need them to do lower-level things can do so. But in my opinion, that's not a high priority for a language like Pike. / Leif Stensson, Lysator Previous text: >2002-09-03 17:50: >Subject: argv[0]? >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >What about people other than "we"? As Lief (I think) stated fork() is at the >base of any *nix system whether one likes it or not - as such, it is very >useful since pike runs on many *nix systems... > > / Marek Habersack (Grendel) >

1 0

GTK and events
by Mikael Brandstr�m (ogg! ogg! ogg!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

Is it possible to send an event/signal to a GTK widget? I have searched the manuals extensively, but not found anything helpfull. I've found perl-gtk examples on how to do it *shrug*, but not anything that works in Pike. The reason is that I want to propagate events to a sister-widget.

1 0

[Pike-devel] test
by eMBee ＠ Pike developers forum 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

this is a test of the emergency broadcast system, had this been a real emergency then an emacs kom client would have been used to write the message.

6 13

GTK.Ruler
by Mikael Brandstr�m (ogg! ogg! ogg!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

Has anyone got at working example of using GTK.Ruler together with GTK.DrawingArea to provide a ruler for the DrawinArea?

1 0

unbug
by Marek Habersack (Grendel) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 04 Sep '02

04 Sep '02

does anybody use it at all?

2 4

[Pike-devel] argv[0]?
by Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS ＠ Pike developers forum 04 Sep '02

04 Sep '02

You misinterpret the silence. If a suggestion is met with silence it's usually an indication that other people either think it's a nice idea or they aren't very interested (which is the case for me when it comes issue of a POSIX module). In either case, it usually means that it's ok to go ahead and implement it. / Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS Previous text: >2002-09-03 17:52: >Subject: argv[0]? >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Johan, not one thing, please - I proposed creating a module called POSIX >which would export those calls. This proposition was silently >ignored... while I think it would be a really good solution. > > / Marek Habersack (Grendel) >

6 19

[Pike-devel] fork(): To be or not to be
by David Hedbor (I live in interesting times) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 04 Sep '02

04 Sep '02

Instead of digging up a suitable message to comment, I am posting this one. My opinion about fork is: 1) It's unsafe with threads. Fine. It's disabled already when there are threads. 2) It has uses, especially on platforms without threads. 3) It hasn't so far caused any of the imaginary problems mentioned here in previous threads (since the no-fork-when-threaded limitation was added at least). Therefor I see absolutely no reason what-so-ever to remove it. Let it stay somewhere (in System, POSIX or but probably not the global scope). Document it as dangerous, and point out that it simply doesn't work most of the case (due to explicit or implicit threads) and explain under what circumstances it does work. This discussion has gone on too far with many unnecessary and stupid arguments whether or not fork() has a right to live. It harms no one, it's safe and it's here. Lets keep it and get on with things. Also, is there no way of getting rid of that implicit thread used on many threaded platforms (without disabling threads completely)? What is the benefit of it exactly? I don't quite see the point of it since things obviously work fine without it. :-)

4 4

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Pike-devel